> > Now this is interesting ... ; - ) You were exaggerating to make a point? Ah, I see ... not unlike my (regretable) Bible comment? ; - )
>
> Actually it wasn't like it at all. In your example, you didn't exaggerate enough -- Jordan's Wheel of Time is already longer than the Bible. In my example, I stated at the outset that I was being partly facetious...and I wasn't being all *that* facetious. The point was still valid; I just used a facetious tone to express it.

Very well - as you say. Though I do not entirely agree with you, but it seems wise to agree to disagree concerning this 'exaggeration' business ...

> It would be harder to sympathize with them if they were invincible. Their weaknesses -- call them "tragic flaws" if you want to sound learned -- reveal their humanity. And for that matter, I wouldn't call seduction a "small" thing. It's hard to find stronger temptations ingrained in humankind.

Agreed - if they had no faults whatsoever, the stories would not be so interesting, and probably would never have passed down through the passage of time. I was making a 'small' joke, actually, that had less to do with ... oh, nevermind. But i also agree - seduction and lust are very strong elements and age old devices for the telling of a ripping good yarn; however, it seems men (in stories at least) tend to succumb to these weaknesses, usually at the hands of a villainous or less than righteous woman, far more so than the reverse is true ...


> So no, I don't think gender has anything to do with who is sympathized with.

Perhaps not from your POV, which is an admirable one BTW.